Aquapak warns UK families could face US$418 higher annual grocery bills under new EPR rules

UK — Aquapak has issued a warning that the UK’s Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme, which came into force in October 2025, could add as much as £312 (US$417.83) per year to the average family of four’s grocery bill.

EPR shifts the financial and operational responsibility for packaging waste from local authorities to producers, importers and brand owners, requiring them to pay fees based on the material types they place on the market.

Under the legislation, companies must pay a fee per tonne of packaging placed into the UK supply chain. Packaging types are categorized using a Red, Amber, Green (RAG) system determined by the Recyclability Assessment Methodology (RAM).

Recyclable materials attract lower fees, while materials deemed difficult to recycle incur higher charges.

The goal is to incentivize more sustainable packaging design, reduce waste, and alleviate pressure on taxpayer-funded local authority budgets.

However, Aquapak, known for developing high-performance, environmentally safe alternatives to conventional flexible plastics, has raised concerns about a lack of clarity in the system’s current definitions and guidance.

According to the company, evolving definitions, inconsistencies in categories, and “illustrative fees” create uncertainty for converters, material innovators and coating providers working on next-generation sustainable formats.

A key issue highlighted is DEFRA’s compositional approach to categorizing fibre-based packaging. Packaging defined as “paper” must contain at least 95% fibre by weight.

Any pack containing more than 5% non-fibre content is reclassified as a “fibre composite”, a category that currently carries higher EPR fees than many plastic formats it is designed to replace.

This could discourage the use of innovative fibre-based solutions such as coated papers and functional barriers intended to improve recyclability.

Mark Lapping, CEO of Aquapak, warned that the unintended consequences of unclear definitions could undermine the purpose of the EPR system, “The intention of EPR is to make more producers and brands use more recyclable packaging.

“However, a lack of clarity and flawed definitions means that instead of pushing for better design, some are already choosing to simply absorb the fees and pass the cost on to consumers – even though the consumer is already paying council tax towards the cost of disposal.”

Lapping added that this results in households paying twice, once through council tax and again through higher product prices, at a time when cost-of-living pressures remain high, “That’s hardly the outcome anyone wanted when EPR was first proposed.”

Industry stakeholders and environmental groups are now calling for DEFRA to refine the EPR guidelines to ensure they reflect recyclability performance rather than composition alone, and to avoid penalizing innovative materials expected to play a key role in achieving the UK’s circular economy goals.

Subscribe to our email newsletters that provide busy executives like you with the latest news insights and trends from Africa and the World. SUBSCRIBE HERE